h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes.

That reminds me. My brother once lost a quiz because, for "What is a light year", he answered "a unit of distance". The correct answer was "a unit of distance in space".

That is so unfair. You never forget those. My son lost a chess tournament in primary school because his opponent refused to move out of check. The teacher was at a loss, and wouldn't let my son simply take the king and end the game -- he said "do something else and play on". My son was philosophical, I was furious.

I still chuckle over my son's Key Stage 2 English test. A two verse poem was presented to them & the first question was 'What differences are there between the two verses?'

'One is shorter than the other' was not the required answer

i must be very lucky or something

feel free to call me a smart alec or whatever...

i got 100% in AS module 1 maths..

and general studies!

and 97% in the english

Actually, yeah, something wrong there... me over 80% in english exam?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

Hey, Whatever!

Yeah, you!

I suppose you got a "Must try harder." for English.

Well done, Kiddo! Keep up the good work, but don't let them complain if your next maths mark slumps to 99%.

Good, Chaiwallah!

When my daughter was small ( about 2 years old and an argumentative "terrible two" ) she called herself Ayah. I was putting up some shelving, and sawing through a plank when she came running up and grabbed the plank rather close to the saw.

I said,"Mind out."
She replied,"No! Ayah mind IN!"

heh, like it.

Just thought I'd pop by with a little anecdote that Sir David Frost recounted at the baftas, if you didn't see it.
About someone complaining that there had been allegations made about them, and how they wanted to find out who the allegator was.
Well, I found it funny anyway!

I remember an Irish minister on the radio castigating irresponsible allegators too.

and you'd have to have some balls to castigate an allegator.

Them insta-gators are right some quick.

I came across this reading the excellent Hugh Trevor-Roper yesterday: a literal usage of 'preposterous'. Here it is as given in OED:


1. Having or placing last that which should be first; inverted in position or order. Now rare.

1552 HULOET, Preposterouse, out of order, ouerthwarth, transuerted, or last done which should haue ben first. 1583 STUBBES Anat. Abus. II. (1882) 59 This is preposterous geare, when Gods ordinance is turned topsie turuie, vpside downe. 1589 PUTTENHAM Eng. Poesie III. xx. (Arb.) 262 The preposterous is a pardonable fault... We call it by a common saying to set the carte before the horse.


Overthwarth -- I like that one. Too long to be useful in Scrabble, alas.

May I recommend that everyone interested in the value of the English language as a vehicle of truth should read Bryan Appleyard's excellent piece on "Bullshit," in last Sunday's Times (Culture Section.) It's basically a review of a book "On Bullshit" by an American philosopher called Frankfurt, published by Princeton University Press a few years ago.

The theme of the book, Appleyard reckons, is so relevant to today's media, because abuse of the language has become the norm. Not just from the point of view of usage, syntax etc., but because language is so regularly used to obfusticate, to throw up smoke screens, to prevaricate, to "spin", to do anything other than tell the simple truth. Of course, this argument dates back to ancient Athens and the various uses of rhetoric, but our media seem to be particularly swamped in bullshit these days, as do may areas of our culture, where the programme note and the catalogue blurb are almost more important than the performance or the artwork.

Enough. I'm ranting again.

No you're not, you're backing up what I said in reference to that programme on fonts. Half an hour of radio and expensive electronic knowhow and very little actual new or educative information. (Like most mobile phones!)

Did they explain how "fount" became "font" though?

The words "fount" and "font" both mean the same thing (a collection of cast letters for printing), both date from the end of the 17th century (1683 and 1688 respectively for first recorded use) and both came from the French word "fonte".

What is their linguistic relationship to baptismal "fonts", and watery or wisdom-laden "founts", do you know?

"What is their linguistic relationship to baptismal "fonts", and watery or wisdom-laden "founts", do you know?"

I don't "know" but I'll hazard a guess:
baptismal font - the point of origin of membership of the Christian faith;
water course or wisdom founts - the place where the desired "substance" may be found or obtained;
printers' fonts - the accumulation of letters from which printed material is assembled, leading later to use as "a style" when diversity arrived.
So, perhaps "the source from which other things flow".

I'm prepared to be dissuaded.

(No sugar in mine, please. )

Absolutely; as in 'fountain'

Latin 'fons': a spring

Though OED does separate the type font from the baptismal font, saying the former derives from the French 'fondre', to melt (metal, for casting). It also says that it became 'fount' just as 'mons' became 'mount'.

Ah! Of course.
Foundry where they cast the metal type faces. (and I saw newspapers being printed with the old "hot metal". Fancy not thinking of that - I can still smell the smell.)

I'll drink to that.
(No sugar in mine, please. )